“In analyzing our case study, we see two major factors contributing to the success of the museum: methods standardization and the development of boundary objects. … His [Grinnell’s] elaborate collection and curation guidelines established a management system in which diverse allies could participate concurrently in the heterogeneous work of building a research museum. … There was an intimate connection between the management of scientific work as exemplified by these precise standards of collection, duration and description, and the content of the scientific claims made by Grinnell and others at the museum.” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 392-393).
“The second important concept used to explain how museum workers managed both diversity and cooperation is that of boundary objects. This is an analytic concept of those scientific objects which both inhabit several intersecting social worlds (see the list of examples in the previous section) and satisfy the informational requirements of each of them. 15 Boundary objects are objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and the constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites. They are weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use. These objects may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining coherence across intersecting social worlds” (Star and Griesemer 1989, 393).
